THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusRAGHU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU KANUMURU (M.P.)

810                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    6 S.C.R. 810               [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A                   THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                        v.
           RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU KANUMURU (M.P.)
                    (Civil Appeal No(s). 4522-4524 of 2022)
B
                                 JUNE 01, 2022
                   [B. R. GAVAI AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
             Constitution of India: Arts. 32, 226 and 323 B – Territorial
      jurisdiction of High Court – On facts, as regards, construction
C     activities in the area, National Green Tribunal-NGT prohibited the
      appellant from undertaking any further construction, when the High
      Court was already in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim
      order permitting the construction – Thereafter, NGT rejected the
      application seeking vacation of stay imposed on construction – On
D     appeal held: Tribunals would be subordinate to the High Court
      insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned
      – On facts, it was not appropriate on the part of the NGT to have
      continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was
      pointed that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had
      passed an interim order permitting the construction – Conflicting
E
      orders passed by the NGT and the High Court would lead to an
      anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a
      difficulty as to which order they are required to follow – In such a
      situation, the orders passed by the constitutional courts, would
      prevail over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals –
F     Continuation of the proceedings before the NGT for the same cause
      of action, which is seized with the High Court, not in the interest of
      justice, thus, the proceedings pending before the NGT quashed and
      set aside – High Court to consider all facts and pass appropriate
      orders striking a balance between the development and the
G     environmental issues – Tribunals – Appeal against orders of statutory
      bodies – Cause of action.
            L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others (1995)
            1 SCC 400 : [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 261 – followed.

H
                                       810
  THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA                           811
                 RAJU KANUMURU (M.P.)

      Priya Gupta and Another v. Additional Secretary,                       A
      Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Others
      (2013) 11 SCC 404 : [2012] 12 SCR 818 – referred
      to.
                        Case Law Reference
                                                                             B
[2012] 12 SCR 818                  referred to              Para 10
[1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 261            followed                 Para 11
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4522-
4524 of 2022.
                                                                             C
      From the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2022 of the National
Green Tribunal (Principal Bench), at New Delhi in Original Application
No.361 of 2021 and Order dated 20.05.2022 in I.A. Nos.117 and 118 of
2022 in O.A. No.361 of 2021.
      Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Advs., Mahfooz       D
Ahsan Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, T. Vijaya
Bhaskar Reddy, K. V. Girish Chowdary, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee,
Ms. Akhila Palem, Abhishek Sharma, Sahil Raveen, Advs. for the
Appellant.
      Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. for the Respondent.                            E
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      B. R. GAVAI, J.
       Permission to file appeal without certified/plain copy of impugned
order is granted.                                                            F
      Issue notice.
       Shri Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf
of the sole respondent, and as such, we have heard the matter finally.
       1. The appellant challenges the order dated 6th May 2022 passed       G
by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as the “NGT”) in O.A. No.361 of 2021, vide which it prohibited
the appellant from undertaking any further construction. The appellant
also challenges the order dated 20th May 2022 passed by the learned
NGT in I.A. Nos. 117 and 118 of 2022 in O.A. No. 361 of 2022, vide
                                                                             H
812            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     which the application seeking vacation of stay imposed vide order dated
      6th May 2022 was rejected.
            2. The appellant was already running a resort at Rushikonda Hill,
      near Visakhapatnam. According to the appellant, after obtaining the
      necessary permission, it has demolished the existing resort and is re-
B     constructing the resort at the same place with additional facilities.
             3. A writ petition being W.P. (P.I.L.) No.241 of 2021, challenging
      the said construction, has already been filed before the High Court of
      Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. In the said writ petition, the Division
      Bench of the High Court has passed the following order on 16th December
C     2021:
            “In the meanwhile, the construction activities and other allied
            activities in relation to the subject project, if any undertaken, shall
            be strictly in accordance with the permission accorded by the
            Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as well as
D
            the existing master plan.”
             4. It appears that the aforesaid writ petition before the High Court
      was filed on 8th December 2021. However, a letter addressed by the
      respondent was sent on 31st October 2021 to the learned NGT. The
      respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament from one of the
E
      constituencies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The learned NGT, after
      taking cognizance of the said letter, initiated the proceedings in O.A.
      No.361 of 2021. It further appears from the record that the learned
      NGT had appointed an Experts Committee on 17th December 2021 which
      submitted its Report on 29th March 2022. A perusal of the said report
F     would reveal that the said Experts Committee consisting of four experts
      did not find any violation in the construction that was carried out by the
      appellant.
             5. However, the learned NGT again, vide its order dated 6th May
      2022, appointed a 2nd Experts Committee. The report of the said 2nd
G
      Experts Committee is still awaited. However, without waiting for the
      said report, by the same order, the learned NGT directed that no further
      construction to be undertaken.
             6. It appears that after the order dated 6th May 2022 was passed
      by the learned NGT, the appellant filed an application for vacating stay
H
     THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA                            813
             RAJU KANUMURU (M.P.) [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

on construction as directed in the said interim order dated 6th May 2022         A
passed by the learned NGT. However, the same was also rejected by
the learned NGT vide its order dated 20th May 2022. Both these orders
are impugned in the present appeals.
       7. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant, submitted that when the High Court of                B
competent jurisdiction was already in seisin of the matter, the learned
NGT could not have entertained a lis with regard to the same cause of
action. He submitted that though this fact was brought to the notice of
the learned NGT, the learned NGT refused to vacate the interim order
dated 6th May 2022, which was in conflict with the order of the High             C
Court dated 16th December 2021.
       8. Dr. Singhvi submitted that NGT is a Tribunal, which is
subordinate to the High Court in so far as the territorial jurisdiction of the
High Court is concerned. He, therefore, submitted that the very
continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT is not sustainable        D
in law.
       9. Shri Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent, on the contrary, submitted that the appellant has acted in
gross breach of the order dated 16th December 2021 passed by the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati. He submitted that the construction          E
is rampantly going on in blatant violation of the order of the High Court.
Contempt petition has already been filed before the High Court, wherein
the High Court after taking cognizance of the blatant violation, issued
notice on 4th May 2022.
      10. This Court, in the case of Priya Gupta and Another v.                  F
Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and
Others1, has observed thus:
         “12. The government departments are no exception to the
         consequences of wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court.
                                                                                 G
         Violation of the orders of the Court would be its disobedience and
         would invite action in accordance with law. The orders passed by
         this Court are the law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the
         Constitution of India. No Court or Tribunal and for that matter
1
    (2013) 11 SCC 404                                                            H
814               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A              any other authority can ignore the law stated by this Court. Such
               obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working,
               otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law
               and the respect for law would irretrievably suffer. There can be
               no hesitation in holding that the law declared by the higher court
B              in the State is binding on authorities and tribunals under its
               superintendence and they cannot ignore it. This Court also
               expressed the view that it had become necessary to reiterate that
               disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have
               a grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and
               encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that
C
               predictability and certainty are important hallmarks of judicial
               jurisprudence developed in this country, as discipline is sine qua
               non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system.
               If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the
               provisions of the Constitution and to abide by the rule of law, it is
D              not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle
               by those who are required to lay down the law. [Ref. East India
               Commercial Companies Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [AIR 1962
               SC 1893] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors. [(2008) 10
               SCC 1]”
E           11. In any case, no law is necessary to state that insofar as the
      Tribunals are concerned, they would be subordinate to the High Court
      insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned. A
      reference in this respect was also made to the judgment of the
      Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v.
F     Union of India and Others2.
             12. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not
      appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the
      proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed that the High
      Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order
G     permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned
      NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where
      the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they
      are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a

      2
H         (1995) 1 SCC 400
   THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA                             815
           RAJU KANUMURU (M.P.) [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would    A
be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals.
       13. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that
the continuation of the proceedings before the learned NGT for the same
cause of action, which is seized with the High Court, would not be in the
interest of justice.                                                            B
      14. We, therefore, quash and set aside the proceedings pending
before the learned NGT in O.A. No.361 of 2021.
       15. We further find that taking into consideration the serious
allegations made by the respondent, it will be appropriate that all these       C
facts are placed before the High Court and the High Court considers
passing appropriate orders in accordance with law so as to strike a
balance between the development and the environmental issues.
       16. Needless to state that though development is necessary for
economical progress of the nation, it is equally necessary to safeguard         D
the environment so as to preserve pollution free environment and ecology
for the future generations to come.
       17. We, therefore, find that it will be appropriate that the parties
move the High Court for appropriate orders. The respondent would be
at liberty to file an application for impleadment before the High Court in      E
the pending proceedings, which would be considered by the High Court
in accordance with law.
       18. Though, the High Court has permitted construction to proceed
in accordance with law, we find that till the High Court takes a fresh call
on the said issue, it will be necessary to issue the following direction:       F
      (a) Until the High Court considers the issue, the construction will
          be permitted only on the area where the construction existed
          earlier and which has been demolished and the flat area.
       19. Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of           G
the State, on instructions from Shri Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, stated that
the appellant would not claim any equities on account of the construction,
which is permitted to be proceeded further.
      20. We further clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the matter and the parties would be at liberty to raise all the   H
816                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 6 S.C.R.


A     issues available to them before the High Court which shall be considered
      in accordance with law. Since the learned NGT has already constituted
      an Experts Committee, the High Court would be at liberty to take into
      consideration the report of the said Experts Committee or if it finds
      appropriate may appoint other Committee as it deems fit.
B           21. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. Pending
      application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.


      Nidhi Jain                                             Appeals disposed of.

C




D




E




F




G




H